9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (6) TMI 468 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside Adjudication order - Determination of annual capacity of production for Central Excise duty - Alleged underpayment of duty by the respondents - Applicability of decision in the case of Beauty Dyers - Comparison of rules under different notifications - Remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the Adjudication order based on the decision in the case of Beauty Dyers. The respondents, a steel manufacturer, were found liable for Central Excise duty. The Commissioner determined their annual production capacity, leading to a dispute over duty payment. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing the Beauty Dyers case. 2. The Departmental Representative argued that the duty was correctly determined based on the annual production capacity, emphasizing that the Beauty Dyers decision was not applicable as the rules in question were not issued under the same notification deemed ultra vires by the Madras High Court. Reference was made to the Mohindra Steels Ltd. case to support the Revenue's position. 3. On the other hand, the respondents contended that they had paid the duty correctly, disputing any underpayment. The Tribunal noted that the rules governing the respondents' production capacity were different from those in the Beauty Dyers case. It was highlighted that the absence of a specific ruling declaring the rules ultra vires meant that the Beauty Dyers decision did not automatically apply to all rules under Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision following natural justice principles. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a case-specific analysis rather than a blanket application of legal precedents.
|
